Saifullah Mahsud

I am going to describe some painful and personal things in relation to Russell Brand because I have been put in a position now where I feel that I have no choice other than to do so, given the misleading reports and speculation around the facts of a harassment injunction that was taken out to protect me and my family. Firstly, and most importantly, I am and have always been strongly and unequivocally on the side of all of Brand’s victims. I am in awe of the courageous women who came forward at Brand’s trial, told their stories, testified and ensured justice was done. I have had my own personal experience of his violence, coercive control and abuse. I had to call the police to have him removed from my house in 2014 during a violent incident. I chose not to press charges at the time and not to go public with this, as I was worried about the impact of the press attention on my then teenage children. I have neither seen nor spoken to Brand since that period in 2014. Whilst my pain in relation to this, pales in comparison to what the women have testified in court have suffered, this was a difficult period in my life which has had a lasting impact. Over several years, I assisted the journalists who finally exposed him; Ros Urwin, Louisa Compton and Dorothy Byrne.  I also undertook to testify in court to his abusiveness, if the newspaper that published the victims’ accounts were ever to be sued. I have spent much of my professional career trying to support unfairly demonised and silenced women, such as Monica Lewinsky and defending free speech. In 2014, a harassment injunction was taken out against a woman called Szilvia Berki which was made final in 2015.  I fully understand the good intentions of those now advocating on her behalf online and agree with their demand for this harassment injunction to be varied, as my lawyer made clear to Berki’s lawyer in December last year. However, the commentary and media reporting this week has presented an untrue narrative, which has opened me up to vile hatred and abuse online. For this reason, and to correct the record, I am providing the factual background to that injunction to explain why The High Court found the campaign of harassment by Berki against me to be, "oppressive and unacceptable” and made the order permanent. The background to this is that Ms Berki came to my house for roughly 30 minutes in June 2014, after I booked her to give a massage to Brand. By the time she arrived he had decided he didn’t want a massage and asked her to leave. She was clearly offended. I was present the whole time he was with her, and I did not see anything untoward, despite the fact that he was later found guilty of sexually assaulting other women and he later physically assaulted me. If I saw any man abuse any woman under any circumstances, I would do my utmost to stop them, without hesitation. Ms Berki later reported to the police that Brand had pushed her in the back whilst she was leaving the house and that she also said she was “attacked” by my dog, which she described in her police statement as my dog licking her face. The police rightly investigated Ms Berki’s complaint. I cooperated fully with the investigation, provided a truthful statement about what I saw and also provided CCTV footage, which showed my overly exuberant but totally unaggressive dog jumping up.   Following an investigation into Ms Berki’s allegations, police concluded that there was no case to answer and that no criminal offence had been committed. According to the police, at no time did Ms Berki ever state to them that she had been assaulted, threatened or falsely imprisoned. There was also a subsequent review of the investigation by the IPCC and Thames Valley Police Professional Standards which found that the original police investigation had been correct in its findings. In the meantime, several untrue stories appeared in the tabloid papers. Ms Berki forwarded an email to me confirming a payment for one such story she had received from The Sun newspaper. Articles were also published in The Telegraph, The Mail and The Mirror at Ms Berki’s instigation which contained her account of the alleged incident. Then having at first said in a story published by the Daily Mail that she had found me to be “really very nice, very, very nice,” she later embarked on a campaign of vicious antisemitic and threatening abuse online and in emails. Below is just a sample of some of those tweets and messages sent over many months (which were submitted to the judge who granted the harassment injunction)- (Jemima is a) “deeply rotted JEWISH Bitch” “Did you know that if your life is in danger you can LAWFULLY kill your attacker as defence?! … by now I could have lawfully kill at least 5-6 people who were hurting me” “Also happy birthday (Jemima). I hope you have more. In other words I hope you don’t die this year.” EMAIL- “If you make me very upset…you can expect the worts from me – I think you know this – without that I need to remind you” “What is going on in Britain is a dictatory of J evils. English Jewish Evil dictatory” “Would like to see justice, and I do not think that I should do it myself but what can I do when every organisation is scared of Jevils! ;)” “They say … Do not hate all Jews because you know a few Jewish evils. They are on top always decadent and evils” “Fortunately there are many mansions outside of the UK where Jewish money aristocrats are still not welcomed #Germany #Austria #Italy #Hungary” "Judge on High Court: I ordered her to shut up Jew. Do I have a case or not? soon we will kill her then". “A pity that I was in the UK. BB In Hungary if you would report the Police they would for sure find it without an investigation already that the Jews are guilty. Sad” “Every organisation is scared of JEVILS” “When my great grandparents see what Jews did to me they do something in heaven to solve this. I will not make my hand dirty with Jews.” “J evils … Rob, lie, crime” “I am so happy I am free from the English Jewish Evil dictator and outside of England the High Court cannot rule” “Probably I wait a bit more and than go public. What is going on in Britain is a dictatory of J evils.” She sent an enormous volume of similarly disturbing emails and tweets to or about me, to my family, to my workplace, to journalists from the national media to members of my family, to UNICEF UK where I had been a goodwill Ambassador for decades, and to organisations my ex-husband was associated with, and to MPs. She began disseminating on social media wild and untrue allegations about me, ranging from kidnap to cyberhacking, to having someone bump into her and laugh at her in the tube station, having her followed by two men, bribing the police, paying off a judge, and other false and alarming conspiracy theories based on my Jewishness. The number, tone and content of these messages was extremely frightening. It was distressing for my then teenage children and my family. I was concerned that Ms Berki was potentially a real danger to my family and me. I have had stalkers before and this behaviour felt similarly threatening. Although I was at this point no longer in contact with Brand, I agreed to the suggestion by his lawyer of a harassment order. My sole reason was to stop Ms Berki targeting me and my family. The harassment injunction was upheld by the High Court and Court of Appeal on several occasions. I engaged a lawyer of my own when I was made aware that Berki was applying to the court to vary the terms of the injunction. And I instructed my lawyer in December last year to approach Ms Berki’s barrister to say that I agreed to vary the injunction so that she could speak to the police again if she wanted to. I also instructed my lawyer to engage on her other requests. I did this despite my real fears that the harassment would re-commence and that her threatening antisemitism, if again unleashed, might exacerbate the danger to my children and me that we continue to face because of our Jewish heritage and their father’s political career and incarceration in Pakistan. Her barrister has not responded to my lawyer since May of this year despite trying to engage him. I was informed by her lawyer that any change to the injunction must also be agreed by Brand.  I have no ability to compel Brand in this matter, as I have not seen or spoken to him in over a decade. I hope this information will help clarify speculation about my involvement in the anti-harassment order. I am glad and relieved that Russell Brand has finally faced justice.